Six years before Oppenheimer declared physics to be sinful after his success at building the bomb, he had discovered the existence of black holes as solutions to the Einstein equation. It took the physics community 30 years to fully believe him.

He found two things. (1) An astronaut jumping in takes infinitely long to disappear from sight (provided one could see him that long since the frequency of the light emitted by him goes to zero). (2) On his own wristwatch, only 2 days passed until he reached the surface of the star-mass black hole. Both results are still accepted.

Oppenheimer knew that if a trampoline were installed on the surface, enabling the astronaut to jump back up uninjured, both results are valid again: Up to his return to from where he came, 2 days would pass on his own wristwatch again. But for the outside world, once more an infinite amount of time would have passed.

This simple result is universally accepted but for some reason virtually unknown. It goes under the name “gravitational twins paradox.” No specialist denies it but virtually each will admit that it is new to him or her.

What is so important about such an overlooked item in the history of physics? It is that many since accepted “facts” turn out to be unphysical. All the famous mathematically allowed transformations of the textbooks that cause the “singularity of the horizon” to “disappear” are unphysical. Most standard textbook features of black holes, including Hawking radiation, prove to be mathematical artifacts. The whole field has to be re-started virtually from scratch.

If this is so, what are the consequences? Very simple: The new old Oppie black holes cease to be pussycats. When artificially produced, they do not stop growing inside matter. Moreover they do so, as chaos theory shows, in an exponential fashion: Just as this is observationally known from their giant cousins in quasars.

Okay, what then? Then the attempt to build artificial black holes on earth is maximally dangerous. But CERN is trying to do just that? This is correct. So a discussion needs to take place before the experiment is started at higher energy next week. Correct?

It wouldbe so great if the Albert-Einstein-Institute of the Max-Planck Society could give a comment on the above post. Everyone would be enlightened.

otto rössler wrote:

if a trampoline were installed on the surface, enabling the astronaut to jump back up uninjured, both results are valid again: Up to his return to from where he came, 2 days would pass on his own wristwatch again. But for the outside world, once more an infinite amount of time would have passed.

end quote.

This seems to be standard knowledge that everyone, including hawking, just knows.

From the quoted sentence, however, it just follows that the particles of hawking radiation are not coming from within the horizon neither can they be produced at the horizon.

In fact the particles of hawking radiation are produced nearby the horizon where they can reach us in finite time as measured by a clock far away from the blackhole.

But how can then someone say that backholes would loose energy until they explode?

Well the reason is just, that the mechanism of Hawking radiation does not let anything escape from within the horizon, but something with negative mass, an antiparticle, is falling in the black hole.

The mechanism of hawking radiation implies that a particle antiparticle pair is created near the horizon outside the blackhole. The particle can reach us in finite time as it is produced outside the blackhole. However, the antiparticle falls into the blackhole.

An antiparticle has negative enrgy. Hence, the energy of the blackhole, and therefore its mass, reduces until it is zero.

As the radiation that reaches us from the blackhole is generated outside the hole, it takes only a finite time for an outside observer until the blackhole explodes. The time it takes for an observer outside the blackhole can be computed. It is proportional to the cube of the blackholes mass M_0:

t_evarp=1,33*10^-17 M_0^3 s/kg^3

One knows the mass of the blackholes an accelerator could create, and hence, the blackholes produced by the lhc are harmless…

I appreciate very much this learned response from the Albert-Einstein Institute (possibly by Prof. Nicolai himself).

Quote: “In fact the particles of Hawking radiation are produced nearby the horizon where they can reach us in finite time as measured by a clock far away from the blackhole.”

Very important and no doubt correct re-statement of Hawking’s intentions.

What the writer forgets to say (like Hawking) is that the expected to be escaping particle cannot escape — until it is certain that its partner cannot return to it in the locally set time frame within which it must return according to quantum mechanics in order to re-annihilate. Right?

This requisite certainty of non-return Hawking assumes to be fulfilled once the lower twin has disappeared behind the horizon. Otherwise — as long as it lingers before the horizon — nothing can prevent it from returning to re-unite with its partner. Right?

This is the crucial point: During the lifetime of the second (“outside waitng”) virtual particle, the downwards-headed partner cannot possibly reach the horizon. For this takes infinitely long from the point of view of any outside observer — including the waiting particle. Right?

So nothing prevents the downwards headed particle from returning within the allowed finite waiting time to meet its outer twin. This simple fact Hawking forgot to take into account.

Thank you for caring to respond again, dear colleague.

Otto rössler wrote:

So nothing prevents the downwards headed particle from returning within the allowed finite waiting time to meet its outer twin

end quote.

That is wrong. Quantum mechanics does so.

In fact, it is the core of Hawkings result, that a pure quantum mechanical effect prevents the downwards headed particle from returning and to meet its outer twin.

Only because the infalling particle is prevented by quantum mechanics to return and to meet its twin which flies outwards, one has Hawking radiation.

Actually, this is the core of Hawkings calculation.

By writing statements as the one quoted above, Otto rössler shows that he did not even read Hawkings calculations and does not have any argument against Hawking radiation.

Quote from 3432423 (new writer!):

“the infalling particle is prevented by quantum mechanics to return”

Do you say that quantum mechanics does this all alone? Or is it general relativity — the fact that there is this horizon behind which the one quantum twin disappears in finite particle time — that alone can cause a particle to disappear behind a horizon in finite prticle time — that is the real reason for its not returning in Hawking’s theory?

Please, ask Professor Nicolai before coming back!

325243r5 : “This seems to be standard knowledge that everyone, including hawking, just knows.

From the quoted sentence, however, it just follows that the particles of hawking radiation are not coming from within the horizon neither can they be produced at the horizon.

In fact the particles of hawking radiation are produced nearby the horizon where they can reach us in finite time as measured by a clock far away from the blackhole.”

They are produced everywhere in space. More precisely, in case of a black hole collapse, the final state is a mixed state describing thermal radiation of temperature proportional to surface gravity, which is not (or need not be) localized anywhere in space. This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant, as is Rössler’s main argument (if it would not have been absolutely ludicrous on other grounds).

Also note that particle creation does not even require a horizon. It is in a sense ubiquitous, at least in principle, in time-dependent gravitational fields. So even if—I am hesitating to state this conditional, because it is so violently untrue—Rössler had a point in claiming that no horizon would ever be formed, that still would be no “scientific proof” against Hawking radiation. There would still be radiation, it just would not be characterized by a temperature.

BTW, it’s not really relevant, but anti particles do not have negative mass or negative energy. (If they had either, there would be no stable ground state.)

Rössler: “What the writer forgets to say (like Hawking) is that the expected to be escaping particle cannot escape — until it is certain that its partner cannot return to it in the locally set time frame within which it must return according to quantum mechanics in order to re-annihilate. Right?”

Wrong. Hawking radiation does not, neither in general, nor in the particular case of a black hole spacetime, depend on one particle’s vanishing behind the horizon. Think of a quantum wave/field instead of a localized particle. The former extends across the whole space, and thus necessarily beyond the horizon. About the part beyond the horizon nothing can be known (in particular, you don’t know whether there are any *particles* beyond the horizon pertaining to the field). Thus, black hole creation increases the entropy of the field’s state (more uncertainty means more entropy), which means that heat will be produced, which, in turn, has to come from somewhere if the first law of thermodynamics is supposed to hold. The only source of this heat can be the energy-momentum-distribution which was initially present before the black hole was formed and from which it obtained its mass.

Of course, in general there is much more to be said about the technical preconditions under which Hawking radiation can or cannot occur, or whether it has an adequate particle representation if it does. But all that is completely irrelevant to any of Rössler’s claims, because, well, they already fail on a level of much less sophistication to put it mildly.

Quote: “This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant“

Forgive me that this is an assertion without a reason given (or givable I would add).

Quote: “There would still be radiation, it just would not be characterized by a temperature.“

It is nice that you believe in Unruh radiation. But we were talking here about Hawking radiation. Unruh is much more modest himself.

Quote: “The former [quantum wave field] extends across the whole space, and thus necessarily beyond the horizon.“

Oh no. You assert that any quantum particle that exists in the finite domain also exists measurably beyond infinity.

Quote: “About the part beyond the horizon nothing can be known.“

As this is always the case with things beyond infinity — thanks for acknowledging this.

You did learn a lot in the field. But you have not (yet) produced a consistent picture of your own, due to your still depending on not questioning statements that you cannot fully reproduce yourself because — I would dare say — they are indeed wrong.

We would need here the help of Stephen Hawking or — before that — your boss so Hawking finds it more interesting to participate in his own defense. But thanks for trying to defend him. I like him very much myself.

Rössler: “Forgive me that this is an assertion without a reason given (or givable I would add).”

The reason was given immediately before. But I forgive you for, again, having no clue whatsoever.

“Quote: “There would still be radiation, it just would not be characterized by a temperature.“

It is nice that you believe in Unruh radiation. But we were talking here about Hawking radiation.”

I wasn’t talking about Unruh radiation. I was talking about particle creation in time-dependent gravitational fields. Unruh radiation, by the way, *is* characterized by a temperature, which is proportional to the acceleration of the observer measuring the Unruh effect. You just proved again that you have no idea what you are talking about.

“Oh no. You assert that any quantum particle that exists in the finite domain also exists measurably beyond infinity.”

No, I don’t. In technical terms, I was talking about the decomposition of any quantum field (localized or not) in positive and negative frequency modes (those indeed extend to infinity), which is required by interpreting its (the quantum field’s) state in terms of particles and anti particles. Just what we were talking about.

“Quote: “About the part beyond the horizon nothing can be known.“

As this is always the case with things beyond infinity — thanks for acknowledging this.”

That wasn’t exactly what I was saying, but if you agree, then you also concede that black hole creation increases, at least under “normal” conditions, the entropy of the quantum field’s state?

I asked for your boss, young man.

Just another pathetic attempt to evade a discussion with TRMG (remember? “shut up, you monster!”)

You obviously have no clue about what TRMG is telling you.

“I asked for your boss, young man.”

Why would individuals who currently aren’t taking part in the conversation here decide to suddenly join in when you aren’t even responding to those that are currently taking part in the conversation?

You can’t expect others to join in to a conversation when you don’t respond to a clear point by point response to an ongoing conversation especially when you make such a big deal about asking people to refute your theories.

I am still puzzled that his followership doesn’t even recognize the most obvious flaw in Roessler’s argument – the fact that he ignores that there is no absolute time in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Time is frame dependent. Therefore, an infalling object (or an object expelled with speed of light as well) needs only a finite time measured in its proper time to pass the space between the Schwarzschild radius rs and some outer radius ro > rs. This is 1×1 of physics. May you should pick up a text book and start reading. Because Roessler refuses to learn the basics, doesn’t mean you should do the same.

Prof. Peter Howell

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I apologize — I should have thought about the by-standers while giving the right answer to TRGM being sure that he understands.

So please accept my apologies everyone, and I shall try to explain why I was so disappointed with TRGM’s answer.

——-

First quote: “The reason was given immediately before. But I forgive you for, again, having no clue whatsoever.”

This was TRGM’s anonymous answer to my asking him for the rationale of his statement: “This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant“, which contradicts everything known in the field. And it totally ignores the new infinite distance which I had described in accord with Oppenheimer in my Telemach paper, as TRGM knows. So his answer was pure evasion (neglecting the ad hominem part).

I had given TRGM the status of possibly being a co-worker of the CERN-associated Golm Institute. My asking for his boss was in no way meant in a demeaning sense.

Second quote: “I wasn’t talking about Unruh radiation.”

This is disinformation because his previous claim indeed belonged into Unruh’s universe. The latter is much more restrained in his claims and a very kind man.

Third quote: “No, I don’t. In technical terms, I was talking about the decomposition of any quantum field (localized or not) in positive and negative frequency modes (those indeed extend to infinity), which is required by interpreting its (the quantum field’s) state in terms of particles and anti particles.”

All that follows the first three words “no, I don ‘t” is the exact contrary to those words. This is very bad physics; a more well-versed scientist would not try to offer such a self-contradictory statement. His boss must help him at such a point.

Fourth quote: “you also concede that black hole creation increases, at least under “normal” conditions, the entropy of the quantum field’s state?”

This is the only interesting statement in the form of a question. I am not astonished by this question since the whole topic of talking about “entropy change” in the context of black holes is no longer possible when the ontological elongation of time (and space) close to the horizon is taken into account. This implication of Oppenheimer and his followers do all researchers in the field of Hawking radiation have before their eyes as a nightmare – that hundreds of beautiful papers, along with their master’s, go down the drain because of the revived old theory of black holes.

The question mark at the end of the fourth quote shows that his institution is well aware of the revolution brought about by the return to Oppenheimer.

———.-

But thank you again for asking: You were the wiser man here, Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, dear physicist Peter Howell for saying (quote) “the fact that he ignores that there is no absolute time in the Schwarzschild spacetime.”

This is not the case, as the other physicists apparently already have seen.

All Oppenheimer and I are saying is that there is an external outer time far from any black hole (like the surface of the pre-collapsed star) — where time is going infinitely faster relative to the time on the horizon. And that, compared to this outer time — to which most of the universe subscribes mor or less tightly -, objects sent down and coming up, respectively, take an infinitely long time.

So not the slightest criticism of the Schwarzschild metric is implicit, as my other physical — if unfortunately anonymous — adversaries do not contest.

But thank you for this remark: a medical doctor who is not afraid of dabbling in physics and going public if necessary. I feel very much encouraged by your participation, dear colleague.

“his statement: “This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant“, which contradicts everything known in the field.”

Exactly not as he has clearly explained in the sentence before his statement. To be precise it is exactly the part of his statement you evade to comment on. The point is that you know nothing about this field — a fact you can not hide behind your amusing arrogance.

Please, be so kind to explain to an old idiot what you mean by “the sentence before his statement”. Thank you. Precision is sometimes necessary.

OMG, are you able to read and THINK, Rössler? Are you not able to find yourself the sentences in TRMGs text before the statement you have used for your disinformation-comment?

However, the whole paragraph:

“They are produced everywhere in space. More precisely, in case of a black hole collapse, the final state is a mixed state describing thermal radiation of temperature proportional to surface gravity, which is not (or need not be) localized anywhere in space. This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant, as is Rössler’s main argument (if it would not have been absolutely ludicrous on other grounds).”

You have no answer to that because you do not know anything about this topics. Therefore you try to delude yur followers by writing a completely misleading answer.

Nevertheless it is amusing to watch your evasive “answers” to TRMG. It is nearly impossible to oversee that you have no clue about anything concerning Hawking radiation in special or the whole field in general.

Rössler: “This was TRGM’s anonymous answer to my asking him for the rationale of his statement: “This means the distance to the event horizon is simply irrelevant“, which contradicts everything known in the field.”

LOL, when exactly did your bogus argument against Hawking radiation become part of “everything that is known in the field”? Since you paid for its publication?

Why was it irrelevant again? Because, as I said, neither does the radiation crawl up from the horizon, nor does its existence require another particle to cross the horizon. So never mind how long either of these processes would take for a particular observer.

“Second quote: “I wasn’t talking about Unruh radiation.”

This is disinformation because his previous claim indeed belonged into Unruh’s universe. ”

No, it didn’t. Unruh radiation is not caused by a time-dependent metric, but due to acceleration in a static metric. These are two quite distinct phenomena.

“All that follows the first three words “no, I don ‘t” is the exact contrary to those words. ”

Nonsense. Fields on a Schwarzschild background may be decomposed in exactly the way I described. Or is this also part of the conventional wisdom of physics that doesn’t survive confrontation with your revolutionary results? In that case, it would cease to be meaningful to talk about particles and antiparticles annihilating each other near the horizon. But you didn’t show any particular reservations about doing the latter.

And, nevertheless, this still has nothing to do with asserting “that any quantum particle that exists in the finite domain also exists measurably beyond infinity.” I wasn’t talking about “quantum particles existing in a finite domain” let alone measuring them in any way.

“I am not astonished by this question since the whole topic of talking about “entropy change” in the context of black holes is no longer possible when the ontological elongation of time (and space) close to the horizon is taken into account. ”

Either you are able to know exactly as much about the quantum state after the collapse, as you were prior to it, or entropy increased. You cannot have it both ways. It is quite irrelevant whether the increased uncertainty is caused by the “ontological elongation of time.”

One correct sentence besides polemics (quote): “Either you are able to know exactly as much about the quantum state after the collapse, as you were prior to it, or entropy increased.”

But this is a deep general quantum fact, unrelated gravity. Also it is dependent on interpretation. There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics where it does not hold true. So it is worthless.

I can summarize: The fact that Hawking is falsified by the fact that he did not take into regard a vital fact from general relativity — the infinite distance in time to the horizon and back — stays undisproved and undisputed.

And the machine is being ignited today. I am so sorry.

NO, Otto, you can’t summarize like that.

I’m SO glad that TRMG deigned to come back here! Otto’s rants were becoming dull and repetitive, and the blog was losing its entertainment value. But now it’s fun to see TRMG mop the floor with him once again…

Otto, you are certainly not an expert in the field and it is obvious that you have no clue about the meaning of TRMGs posting. And no, you can not summarize in this way because you have not even started to answer TRMGs comments on your pseudoscience in a qualified way. So far there are only empty buzzwords, nothing substantial — this way you can probably impress laymen and other impostors but not scientists.

It is proven again that you are not qualified to judge whether you are disproved or not.

Look, why is it so bad not to be an expert if you could show that all the experts overlooked a vital feature that was described in 1939 by Oppenheimer and then forgotten because of the political divisions between him and the nme-giver to his own discovery, my late friend Johnny Wheeler?

I never said I am as good as the experts, I only said to the experts: Please, dear experts, be so kind as to dismantle the little mini-finding that I (re-) discovered!

All they have to say is: “You are not an expert. We prefer being killed by the experts.” But: you ARE the experts.

Please, name me an expert who says I am wrong with Telemach. Or with Oppie. Thank you.

By the quality of his arguments, TRMG definitely appears to be an expert in general relativity, and over the last year he explained many times why you are wrong (anyway it does not take an expert to spot, e.g., the obvious error in the first equation of your “paper”). The fact that you are not even able to understand his arguments (let alone rebut them) does not make them any less correct.

And BTW, calling Oppenheimer “Oppie” does not make you sound like a colleague of his, it just makes you sound stupid.

The point is that your pseudoscience is absolutely irrelevant for the effect you claim to have disproved. TRMGs has explained this in detail several times above. You never responded to that in a qualified scientific way — instad you just repeated the same wrong statements mixed up with a few buzzwords in order to impress your followers.

Quote: “he explained many times why you are wrong”.

Dear Passenger (if I may use that other pseudonym of yours): Please, take the trouble to repeat — in the form of a theorem — the argument of TRGM’s that you have in mind. For if I did not understand him — I am not very bright — I might be able to understand your more concise version since you obviously understood what he wanted to say.

I take eq’s statement (quote) “You never responded to that in a qualified scientific way” very very seriously.

For as every reader knows, this is exactly my own problem:

That no colleague on the planet ever responded in a qualified scientific way to my Telemach theorem.

So I do not want to make the very same mistake as the planet makes myself., as I hope you will believe me comes from my heart. Take care and thank you.

First of all, what would be the other pseudonym of mine???

Anyway, the argument of TRMG that I have in mind is the one in the next-to-last paragraph in the comment “TRMG on April 3, 2012 12:12 pm”, which is concise and well-formulated enough that it does not require a repetition. If you think that you are not bright enough to sustain the discussion you should refrain from polluting the internet with your rants.

The other argument I have in mind is the ludicrous mistake in eq.1 of Telemach, which TRMG, myself and others have been pointing out for weeks (if not months) starting last summer. Remember? You contradicted yourself and changed the definition (and even the dimensions) of your variables several times. Finally you made up some sciencey-sounding gibberish (temporal wavelength, anyone?) rather than correct the mistake.

“That no colleague on the planet ever responded in a qualified scientific way to my Telemach theorem.”

That is not surprising considering what obvious non-scientific nonsense Telemach is.

PassengerBy refereed to this paragraph as the long-awaited proof against Telemeach:

“Wrong. Hawking radiation does not, neither in general, nor in the particular case of a black hole spacetime, depend on one particle’s vanishing behind the horizon. Think of a quantum wave/field instead of a localized particle. The former extends across the whole space, and thus necessarily beyond the horizon. About the part beyond the horizon nothing can be known (in particular, you don’t know whether there are any *particles* beyond the horizon pertaining to the field). Thus, black hole creation increases the entropy of the field’s state (more uncertainty means more entropy), which means that heat will be produced, which, in turn, has to come from somewhere if the first law of thermodynamics is supposed to hold. The only source of this heat can be the energy-momentum-distribution which was initially present before the black hole was formed and from which it obtained its mass.”

I do admit that I am too stupid to see the connection. I need help, and the planet needs help and these kids are playing games.

Probably you need help but certainly not the planet. The planet does not depend on your understanding…

Again you reveal yourself as being megalomaniac.

Why do you refuse to answer my question: Where did TRGM ever disprove Telemach?

Please, give the text. If it contains a theorem, someone will be able to extract it. I also will do my best to help him formulate.

There is nothing to add to this:

Anyway, the argument of TRMG that I have in mind is the one in the next-to-last paragraph in the comment “TRMG on April 3, 2012 12:12 pm”, which is concise and well-formulated enough that it does not require a repetition. If you think that you are not bright enough to sustain the discussion you should refrain from polluting the internet with your rants.

TRMG and many other peolpe have shown the major flaws in Telemach countless times. There is no need to repeat this again and again only because Rössler does not want to stop to play his little dirty game…

Oh no: you forgot that 6 paragraphs ahead the argument you advertise has been reprinted — so your claim is evidently void.

reprinted?

I meant this paragraph from TRGM, dear Mr. Goos (thank you for asking as a real person):

“Wrong. Hawking radiation does not, neither in general, nor in the particular case of a black hole spacetime, depend on one particle’s vanishing behind the horizon. Think of a quantum wave/field instead of a localized particle. The former extends across the whole space, and thus necessarily beyond the horizon. About the part beyond the horizon nothing can be known (in particular, you don’t know whether there are any *particles* beyond the horizon pertaining to the field). Thus, black hole creation increases the entropy of the field’s state (more uncertainty means more entropy), which means that heat will be produced, which, in turn, has to come from somewhere if the first law of thermodynamics is supposed to hold. The only source of this heat can be the energy-momentum-distribution which was initially present before the black hole was formed and from which it obtained its mass.”

So, what’s your problem? That is the way HR is functioning. And well proofed by experiment.

Dear Mr. Goos:

There was never an experimental proof of Hawking radiation itself (“analogs” are without impact on the original). And the theory itself has never been definitively proved. Even Professor Hawking’s closest colleague in the field, Professor Unruh, does not support it. Most important, the counter-proof implicit in my gothic-R theorem of 2007, and my Telemach theorem of 20010 (see http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf ) has never been disproved.

But it would of course be wonderful if you had more encouraging news.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler

Rössler: “PassengerBy refereed to this paragraph as the long-awaited proof against Telemeach: ”

Oh dear, wrong again. Look, there are two major problems with your overall argument:

1) Your belief that “Telemach” is sound science, instead of woo-woo crackpottery.

2) Your belief that “Telemach” has any logical implications against Hawking radiation.

I was just concerned with the latter, which doesn’t require to offer a “counter-proof” against “Telemach.” If you are looking for one, have a thorough read of the comment sections of your blog posts from several months ago as long as they haven’t been swept away by diligent webmasters.

Oh no — anonymous lies. How long are they to be repeated?

This malevolent anonymous pseudo-scientist is kindly asked to give evidence — a counter-theorem — to Telemach. Or else to find a stronger CERN-paid scientist to do so. Or a third-world scientist who knows his country’s only chance is to be given aid by CERN and its allied military-industrial institutions.

No one would be happier than me since the only rationale for my writing is to be helped in finding a counter-proof. No one is more on the side of the “good CERN” — the scientific CERN — than me. We owe them the Internet. They owe us a return to honesty. Why not invite me and ground me after my public talk? All their alleged “enemy” is asking for is to be falsified at last. For the machine is running…

“This malevolent anonymous pseudo-scientist is kindly asked to give evidence — a counter-theorem — to Telemach.”

OMG, you are so incredibly dense. Don’t you even deem it necessary to understand before you start calling something a lie? OK, I’ll frame my point in simpler terms for you: Imagine someone saying “I’m stronger than you, therefore you owe me money.” Does that mean you really owe him, unless you can prove that he is not really stronger? Or are there probably other objections that can be raised against his reasoning?

““analogs” are without impact on the original)”

Says the pseudoscientist who have evidently n clue about hawking radiation and the underlying principles as was proven in this blog section.

Rössler, you never gave any sufficient argument against these experiments. The same applies for hawking radiation in general. You have nothing against it in your hands, you have evidently not even understood it. People who are more competent than you as TRMG have told you that countless times — of course they must be malevolent!

Rössler, please tell the world why a competent scientist like TRMG is “malevolent” when he shows the flaws and weakness of your “theses”.

TRGM is not a scientist because he is afraid to show his face.

Not being accountable is the opposite of being a scientist.

Again no argument.

The statements of TRMG show more scientific background than yours. It does not matter whether he is anonymous or not.

You are using this non-argument again and again to avoid to give any answer to his arguments. Poor Rössler!

“Professor Unruh, does not support it.”

BTW, on the contrary Prof Unruh stated that exactly the experiments to HR which Rössler wants to forget are in principle useful for gaining evidence about HR.

P.S. To 6:00 am:

But don’t read me wrong: TRGM tried a rudimentary form of communication.

CERN refuses before the whole world to say who gave his word to them that either the Telemach theorem or the miniature-quasar theorem or the frictionless neutron star core theorem is wrong.

I humbly ask to be allowed to give a talk at CERN at long last so they have an occasion to save their face by supplying the necessary scientific evidence retroactively. If they can do so, the world will forgive them.

“TRGM is not a scientist”

And another pathetic cop-out. Rössler, it doesn’t matter whether I’m a scientist or not. You’ll have to answer an argument without distinction as to personal characteristics like name, affiliation or even academic credentials. In fact, it was one of your favorite and oft-repeated truisms that even an idiot could make a valid argument, which cannot be less true of an anonymous.

You gave no argument in the form of a falsifiable statement that if true disproves the Telemach theorem.

Since my stupidity may be so great that I never so far understood what you wanted to say, I ask you again to repeat your argument in a way that it is easy to falsify — in the form of a counter-theorem (“anti-Telemach theorem”).

The whole world is waiting for an anonymous German scientist possibly working at the CERN-allied Albert-Einstein Institute in Golm near Potsdam to come forward with that vitally needed counter theorem.

Please, be so kind as to provide it so the world can judge. Thank you. Then your theorem will show you are a scientist even though you are hiding your face for never disclosed reasons. It will then your theorem which gives a name to its inventor, no matter what his former name. For you will have brought to a good end the worst scandal oh history.

“You gave no argument in the form of a falsifiable statement that if true disproves the Telemach theorem. ”

It is your privilege to believe that. But why would “showing my face” be of any importance then?

“Since my stupidity may be so great that I never so far understood what you wanted to say, I ask you again to repeat your argument in a way that it is easy to falsify — in the form of a counter-theorem (“anti-Telemach theorem”). ”

Repetition is not a remedy against stupidity, I’m afraid. If you still did not understand why refuting “Telemach” is not the issue right now, then I really cannot help you.

Rössler does not understand TRMGs arguments and tries to bury these arguments below nonsensical repetitions of his Telemach-nonsense.

Poor Rössler!

“If they can do so, the world will forgive them.”

The world. Megalomaniac Rössler identifies himself with nothing less than the “world”.

This defines new standards of delusional crackpottery

Moreover — while this thread focuses on the fact that “Telemach” has no impact on Hawking radiation — there have been plenty of “falsifiable statements that if true disprove the Telemach theorem” in earlier threads. What about this one:

“eq.(1) of Telemach is incorrect”

if true (and countless bytes have been wasted trying to explain to Rossler why this is the case) then the theorem is disproved. Rossler’s insistence that someone provides a “counter-theorem” betrays his lack of understanding of how science works. If you can point out a flaw or inconsistency in the “theorem”, then the theorem is dead, there is no need for “counter-theorems”.

This was meant as a comment on “TRMG on April 6, 2012 7:01 am”.

Earlier comments on http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/oppies-black-holes-versus-cern/comment-page-1

“Rossler’s insistence that someone provides a “counter-theorem” betrays his lack of understanding of how science works. If you can point out a flaw or inconsistency in the “theorem”, then the theorem is dead, there is no need for “counter-theorems”. ”

I fully agree.

BTW, if asked what precisely he would accept as a “counter-theorem,” Rössler imagined something that starts from the same premises, but arrives at a different conclusion, or, alternatively, a falsification of the premises, which in this case would be special relativity or the equivalence principle.

Disregarding the second option as highly unrealistic, the first one would be completely useless unless you also spot the flaw in the logic in either of the alleged proofs, which means that is really all you have to do in the first place.

The long Otto-silence again.

Interesting point (quote): [starting from the same premises, but arriving at a different conclusion would be] “useless unless you also spot the flaw in the logic in either of the alleged proofs.”

This is obviously false. Finding a truth is not useless if the unsuccessful paths chosen by others are not simultaneously described and analyzed in detail.

Nevertheless it is the first time that anyone asks for this SECONDARILY very important element as well. It shows that logic is returning into the discussion.

Finding the truth is always much easier than understanding why someone else went astray. But it is very illuminating eventually to see where the decisive error occurred.

Where is the point where everyone went astray? I put it into the fact that they all overlooked (because Oppie did not put his finger on this) that not only the passage downstairs takes an infinite amount of time — seen from the outside — to arrive there, both for astronauts and for light, but also the passage back upstairs does.

This symmetry is very easy to overlook when you know at the same time that an astronaut takes only two days according to his own wristwatch for both travels, and a light ray not time at all according to its own wristwatch if it could be given one.

So it could happen that Hawking overlooked that “from the point of view of the twin particle in the pair of shortlived virtual particles, the partner takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon [so nothing prevents himt from returning after a short finite time according to the twin particle’s clock].

Got the point? It was the temporal symmetry that went unrecogniozed for 73 years.

Amazing how you miss the point of TRMGs again and again.

Just repeating the already disproved nonsensical argumentaton against HR which in fact does not disprove HR is useless, Rössler.

Besides it is obvious you have not even understood the principles of science.

It is also not the first time that you are asked to show the flaws in the work of others as for example Reissner-Nordström…

You are therefore a proven liar.